Transportation Research Board Special Report 256
Subscriber Category
IA planning and administration
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418 (telephone 202-334-3214; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This report was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Cover design by Tamara Lee
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Managing technology transfer: a strategy for the Federal Highway Administration / Research and Technology Coordinating Committee.
99 pp., 23x15 cm.—(Special report - Transportation Research Board, National Research Council; 256)
ISBN 0-309-7102-X
I. Highway engineering—Technological innovations—United States. 2. Technology transfer—United States—Management. 3. Transportation equipment industry— Technological innovations—United States. 4. Road construction industry—Technological innovations—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board. Research and Technology Coordinating Committee. II. Special Report (National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board); 256.
TE153.M36 1999 99-046600
625.7’0973—dc21 CIP
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
C. MICHAEL WALTON, Chairman,
University of Texas at Austin
ALLAN L. ABBOTT,
Department of Public Works, Lincoln, Nebraska
JOEL D. ANDERSON,
California Trucking Association, West Sacramento
DWIGHT M. BOWER,
Idaho Transportation Department, Boise
RICHARD P. BRAUN,
Consultant, Minneapolis, Minnesota
JOHN E. BREEN,
University of Texas at Austin
FORREST M. COUNCIL,
University of North Carolina, Raleigh
FRANK L. DANCHETZ,
Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta
HENRY E. DITTMAR,
President, Great American Station Foundation, Las Vegas, New Mexico
IRWIN FELLER,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park
NANCY D. FITZROY,
General Electric Company (retired), Niskayuna, New York
LARRY R. GOODE,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
JACK KAY,
SAIC, Orinda, California
JOE P. MAHONEY,
University of Washington, Seattle
MICHAEL M. RYAN,
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg
THOMAS A. SMITH,
Consultant, Orlando, Florida
DAVID SPIVEY,
Asphalt Paving Association of Washington, Inc., Seattle
DALE F. STEIN,
President Emeritus of Michigan Technological University, Tucson, Arizona
DAVID K. WILLIS,
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C.
Preface
The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC), a special committee convened by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council and funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides continuing guidance to FHWA on highway research and technology opportunities and priorities. Since 1992 the committee has addressed a variety of topics, some at the request of FHWA and others selected by the committee in consultation with the agency. This report addresses a subject that has been of interest to the committee for some time: how FHWA selects research products for technology transfer and transfers those products to the highway industry, in particular the state and local agencies that own, operate, and maintain the nation’s highways.
During a review of the research facilities and activities at FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) in October 1997, the committee expressed interest in learning more about how FHWA’s Office of Technology Applications (OTA) selected research products for its technology transfer program and how it delivered these products to end-users. This interest meshed with an earlier FHWA suggestion that the RTCC help OTA identify the customers for the research products promoted by the office. After the meeting at TFHRC, Robert Betsold, then FHWA’s Associate Administrator for Research and Development, and Dennis Judyki, then FHWA’s Associate Administrator for Safety and Systems Applications (where OTA was located within FHWA) and currently Director of the Office of
Research, Technology, and Development, encouraged the RTCC to review FHWA’s technology transfer activities and make suggestions for improving its technology delivery system. Such a study was also supported by Joseph Toole, Director of OTA, who noted FHWA’s need to develop performance measures for its technology transfer activities in response to the requirements of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).1
As a result of these and other discussions, the RTCC decided to examine technology transfer within OTA. The committee’s purpose was to address how FHWA can improve its technology transfer program efforts to accelerate innovation in the highway sector.2 The committee defined its scope to comprise three topics: (1) how OTA identified and selected technologies for transfer, (2) how it set program priorities and made resource allocation decisions, and (3) how it measured program success.
The RTCC initiated its study by forming a task force under the direction of Irwin Feller, Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, and Professor of Economics, Pennsylvania State University. Other task force members included current RTCC members Forrest Council, Frank Danchetz, and Nancy Fitzroy and former RTCC member Neville Parker. At RTCC meetings in March and June 1998, FHWA staff briefed the committee on the agency’s organization and methods for technology transfer. In August 1998 the task force met with FHWA staff to examine several recent technology transfer initiatives and to review alternative technology transfer strategies. The committee also examined material prepared by TRB staff that reviewed the literature on technology transfer and described specific case studies of FHWA technology transfer activity.
During the study, two events took place that affected the formulation of the committee’s recommendations. First, passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in June 1998 greatly reduced FHWA’s technology transfer budget.3 Although the administration requested more than $100 million annually for FHWA technology transfer and related activities, Congress provided about $40 million annually, the majority of which was earmarked for specific activities or designated for particular recipients.
Second, effective October 1998, FHWA reorganized its headquarters office and eliminated OTA. The reorganization created five new core business units and eight service business units in a matrix organization.4 It distributed responsibility for FHWA technology transfer among the core business units and the new service business unit for research, development, and technology. In addition, as part of its overall reorganization, FHWA closed its nine regional offices and established four technical resource centers to support the state-level division offices in their primary role of program delivery.5 FHWA reorganized to emphasize technology delivery to state and local highway agencies at a time when these agencies need new technologies to address problems caused by heavy use, congestion, and deterioration. With no new major construction programs and fewer restrictions on federal highway funds, FHWA seeks to accomplish technology delivery through leadership and guidance in cooperation with state and local highway agencies.
As a result of the reorganization, the committee’s recommendations, while always aimed at FHWA’s technology transfer efforts and the acceleration of innovation, now apply to the five core business units and the research, development, and technology service business unit, rather than to OTA. The recommendations are based on a review of the relevant literature, presentations by FHWA staff, and other information gathered by the committee and staff, as well as the collective judgment of the committee members. The committee had hoped to be able to review detailed empirical information on a variety of OTA’s specific technology transfer activities, including resources expended for individual initiatives and implementation results. OTA had not collected such detailed information, however, and was therefore unable to provide it. OTA staff did provide anecdotal information in a number of presentations.
The recommendations in this report are aimed at the establishment of a specific strategy for FHWA’s technology transfer activities.6 The proposed strategy addresses programmatic issues related to identifying, selecting, and prioritizing technologies for transfer; making resource allocations; and measuring program success. The recommendations also address what the committee sees as a management gap created by FHWA’s recent reorganization, which the committee believes could
have an impact on the overall effectiveness of agencywide technology transfer efforts.
The principal audience for the report consists of top-level management at FHWA responsible for technology transfer. The intended audience also includes FHWA’s primary customers—the state and local highway agencies—along with highway contractors, materials suppliers, and other components of the highway industry.
The committee would like to recognize the FHWA staff members who provided valuable information and background material. Joseph Toole, Michael Halladay, and Byron Lord, formerly of OTA, were particularly helpful in preparing material for the committee and participating in several discussions about specific aspects of OTA’s activities. In addition, Anna Bennett, Jeffrey Lindley, John Hooks, and John McCracken of FHWA and William Carr of the Washington Department of Transportation made presentations to the committee.
The study was performed under the overall supervision of Stephen R. Godwin, Director of Studies and Information Services. Walter J. Diewald served as the project director. The committee also wishes to thank Suzanne Schneider, Assistant Executive Director of TRB, who managed the report review process. The report was edited by Rona Briere and prepared for publication under the supervision of Nancy A. Ackerman, Director of Reports and Editorial Services.
The report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Gary R. Allen, Virginia Transportation Research Council; Randall Erickson, 3M Laboratories; Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia; Damian J. Kulash, Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc.; John P. McTague, Montecito, California; and J. David Roessner, Georgia Institute of Technology. Although the individuals listed above have provided con-
structive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the institution.
NOTES
|
1. GPRA requires federal agencies to set strategic goals and to use performance measures for management and budgeting. |
|
2. As noted in the committee’s initial report (TRB 1994) FHWA’s major research functions and its technology transfer functions were separated organizationally and supported by individual budget accounts. This separation of functions led the RTCC to address technology transfer as it is practiced at FHWA. |
|
3. TEA-21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs for a 6-year period. |
|
4. The five core business units address infrastructure, operations, planning and environment, motor carrier and highway safety, and federal lands highway. The eight service business units focus on policy; administration; research, development, and technology; professional development; corporate management; civil rights; public affairs; and legal counsel. Appendix A provides statements of the research and technology delivery functions for FHWA’s core business units and the research, development, and technology service unit. |
|
5. Each resource center serves a group of states within a geographical area, and each provides specific technical expertise on a limited set of topics. Technical expertise is shared among the resource centers and FHWA’s state-level division offices as needed. |
|
6. In its May 14, 1998, letter report to the FHWA Administrator, the RTCC noted the lack of a strategy for FHWA technology transfer activities. The committee suggested that “basing the activities of FHWA’s Office of Technology Applications on a formal model of technology transfer—one grounded in empirical data and the experience of agency staff—can help avoid repeated use of the same methods because they ‘usually work,’ rather than changing or adapting methods as appropriate for particular circumstances. Such a model can also help an agency optimize the use of various methods, respond to unusual situations, and communicate better among the stake holders involved in the technology transfer process.” |
REFERENCE
ABBREVIATION
TRB Transportation Research Board
TRB. 1994. Special Report 244: Highway Research: Current Programs and Future Directions. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.